Free Speech and Fascist Philosophy

Given how hard we are fighting for our free speech rights now, do those of you who adhere to fascist philosophy believe that when and if we live under a fascist state we should keep these rights?

I'm not really an adherent to fascism, though I am a bit of an admirer. I ask this question because it struck me as contradictory to see fascist elements of the alt-right taking part in rallies and exercising free speech rights, meanwhile from my (admittedly crude) understanding of fascism, it seems that the fascists exercising this right don't have much ideological respect for it.

If you're well versed in fascist philosophy, I would seriously appreciate your insight.

Other urls found in this thread:

cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/communism-computing-china/censorship.html
heterodoxacademy.org/resources/heterodox-u/
heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/
theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/sowell-the-left-right-dichotomy/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The thing with free speech is that defending it puts you in disadvantage.
Communists don't like or pretend to like free speech. They'd take your rights away in a heartbeat. That's why we can't afford to let them grow stronger. And considering how colleges are converting people to far left idelogies, the only way I can see to stop communism from spreading is by cutting down their rights to expression.
We can't abide by the golden rule(do to others what you'd want done to you) if our enemies don't. We can't pretend to be the bigger person if they're working to undermine all that we stand for.

Censorship is not a fascist value in of itself, but a tool

And should it be used when we come to power?

Fuck yes

>we are fighting for our free speech rights now
Emphasis is on 'our'. The unironic Fascists support free speech only as long as it's in their interest.

Nah, we can better discredit stupid bullshit like marxism with proper education and propaganda.

Education and propaganda are also useful tools, but they only go so far. We don't want to just "convince" our enemy we are right. Some people can never be convinced.

We want to totally crush our enemies. Censorship can be used as a tool to do this

Free speech is how you get evolution of ideas. You can't just stick to one idea for the rest of time, you need to be able to talk about other possible ways of doing things. That said, speaking about destroying the nation (the people, not the government) is so obviously not the way to betterment of the nation that it need not be guaranteed under free speech.

>no chance of Marxism ever rearing its ugly head in colleges.

Sounds great.

"Freedom" according to the society of decay is the "freedom" to do wrong. The freedom to say things of this world of decay we currently live in.

A Fascist doesn't recognize such freedoms. Fascists seek truth in everything, and which to destroy lies and decay EVERYWHERE

There is no freedom of speech in truth.

To expand on the image, the only freedom a Fascist fights for is one to do right. Imposing a ((freedom)) to do and say what is inherently wrong and deceitful is a sign of decay and degeneration

It takes longer to disprove a lie than to tell a lie. If you don't nip marxists in the bud, they subvert your institutions, gain power, and nip you. always.

Yeah, i guess your probably right.

I know right, but then the government you bestowed this power on starts banning things you like and some the people you are fighting for free speech with are commies, doing it in their own interest like the fascists are now.
Free speech should be non-debatable.

If we have a Fascist state, then the banning of truth wouldn't be an issue

You are a faggot

Fascism is authoritarian in nature and is therefor antithetical to free-speech. All authoritarian ideologies oppose free-speech.
As I understand it, where fascism stands out as a philosophy is in its economic theory where although businesses are still held in private hands, they are ultimately responsible to the state. This provides the ability to scapegoat the business class when fascist policy ultimately fails. It is divergent from communism in who holds control of the business environment (state holds direct control vs private) but it still requires populism to be initiated and implemented. Both communism and fascism require the pandering to the lower classes as indicated by the invocation of the benefits to the workers in both ideologies but after its installation, all power shifts to the state.
These governments invariably implode under the largess of the state because it is unable to change as all government must. Interestingly, the US is fascist in function if not in name and has been so for at least 100 years and in fact the picture of Fasces in your post are plastered in the House of Representatives. I also have a french passport from the 80s with a fasce on it. In the early 20th century, most countries became fascists but called it democracy. The majority rules over the whole (minorities have no representation). The mature stage of these governments can be seen when everyone is divided into an enumerable categories where none can gather enough support to change the entire government which ultimately is ruled administratively.

...

what the fuck are you even talking about? e.g. Mussolini wasn't hiding the truth from Italian people? LMAO

Don't forget that many communists in Germany at the time switched over to National Socialism.
So you will have communists who not only have power over you but will also dictate the course of your country.
These people are willing to lie, cheat, and wait decades to find a time to implement their ideology, you cannot completely eliminate them.
The best option is to not give them a way to have such power in the first place.

Free speech is a liberal thing. Non-liberal forms of government have never been supportive of it.

Do you consider yourself to be an American nationalist? A patriot? How can you claim to care about American culture and history but want to destroy one of the most fundamental principles this country is founded upon?

At least be honest with yourself; you're not trying to save the US, you're trying to scrap it altogether and replace it with something you think is better.

Well fucking done user

The thing you need to consider is that humans have two truths: the actual one and the label.

Can't let the idiots or the weasels who like to use the label because they're ignorant or want to abuse it to get power actually get power. We've already seen insitutions abuse the label. Everything is collectively White people's fault, even the children. They apparently have oppressive institutional power, say the institutions who publicly side with the left almost every single time. I can't even name a big company that's essentially said this leftist thinking needs to fuck off. At best companies have sided with genuine egalitarianism, stating they will serve everyone equally.

Avoiding using the label is hard enough as it is. Stopping somebody from successfully abusing is even harder, especially when the chucklefuck is in a position of power.

Problem is Marxism isn't very well-defined. Anything can be Marxist if you stretch it far enough. If you try to police free speech you'll inevitably end up dragging people out into the streets for suspected tyranny.

The end result of this is extreme civil unrest, and in order to prevent a government coup you'll have to revoke people's gun rights, at which point you've reached Stalin levels of totalitarian control.

I just can't abandon the values of our country. (((They))) want to. That's what makes us better. I think Antifa should be able to say what they want. The problem is, they don't want that for "us", but I won't shut it all down because of retards.

>Communists don't like or pretend to like free speech.
I was reading around because that claim seemed a bit bizarre to me (I thought communism was all about radical equality), but apparently, there is no real communist view on free speech-- Marx defended it, but as a communitarian system it can definitely justify blocking free speech for the "greater good".
>cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/communism-computing-china/censorship.html

>And considering how colleges are converting people to far left idelogies, the only way I can see to stop communism from spreading is by cutting down their rights to expression.
I have doubts that this is the only way, though. For example, Jonathan Haidt (a self-described political centrist) is fighting against the leftist bias in universities with his advocacy group, the Heterodox Academy.
>heterodoxacademy.org/resources/heterodox-u/

Especially in the university setting, it seems imperative to preserve free speech so that we preserve a diversity of perspectives:
>Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving.
>heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

>We can't abide by the golden rule(do to others what you'd want done to you) if our enemies don't. We can't pretend to be the bigger person if they're working to undermine all that we stand for.
But isn't this the attitude that got us to where we are now? Shouldn't people be pushing for more (and more earnest) debates, instead of each trying to shut their opposition down?
Even looking at it from a totally pragmatic perspective, won't it be better optics to make the other side look like the tyrants?

The USA is founded on disdain for tradition and hierarchy desu. The very nature of your liberal republic is self-destructive in the long run.

If being an American patriot would include subscribing to enlightenment values then being an American patriot would be to support the very thing that dismantles nations.

Free speech doesn't really exist. If you're a threat to the established order you will be eliminated. Fascism is a buzzword anyway, and we already live under it anyway.

Force is all that matters. Sup Forums is still very naive about this inconvenient truth

Okay, but like I said, anyone who thinks like this has to be honest in saying that they don't give a shit about American history or tradition when the Lincoln and Washington statues start coming down.

Our Fascist symbol represents the dildos we love in our asses bundled together, representing the white male who feel their women are getting stolen.

The Axe, also called Nose of the Jew represents the Jewish Alt Right puppeteers.

I guess so, unless you frame it in such a way that American history's defining trait is revolution and change. The war of independence, the frontier, the moon, standing at the forefront of the modern world in innovation for the last century.

You could that the USA is a pioneering country first and foremost and that it's willingness so do away with what no longer works and replace it with something better is the real American spirit and that it would only be fitting for you guys to abandon liberal democracy and move on to something new.

I'd argue that neither totally eliminates the problem. Seeing your brother get punished for stealing a cookie from the cookie jar doesn't make you want the cookie any less. Like I said before, eventually you'll end up with civil unrest if people are being forced to walk on eggshells.

>fascist symbol

it has a name reject

But doesn't this only serve to make them martyrs and bring more attention to their cause? Think about the Daily Stormer, and how its effective censorship made people who had no clue what the site was learn about its existence and ignited interest in what it was all about.

Perhaps I'm extrapolating from anecdotes too much, but I've heard many times on Sup Forums that the more they censor us, the stronger and more convincing we will seem.

I think that if education and propaganda campaigns are done well, opposition groups will be nothing more than an obscure minority.

Additionally, I think the force that creates a lot of this animosity in the first place is a dire lack of earnest and open debate. I think if people felt like they were being heard and that their views were being given a fair shake, that the relationship between opposition groups and everyone else would be a lot warmer and a lot less tumultuous.

Problem is I don't think that would fly. The most patriotic Americans, who would be the ones most likely at the forefront of a revolution, would never in a million years give up their "liberty and justice for all" mantra. It's something that's been burned into our hearts and minds for 341 years and it won't just disappear.

Together we form a mighty faggot!

*241

Fascism is left-wing. No thanks.

theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/sowell-the-left-right-dichotomy/

Fascism, inherently and in practice, is neither against free speech nor against Jews. The idea that it is comes from its opposition to Communism -- which is necessarily against both. Communism must oppose free speech as part of its universal centralization. Communism uses Jews but eventually grows tired of them and begins to round them up and exterminate them as efficiently as any Nazi. Fascism is democracy in action -- the united and activated community punishing attempts at tyranny with death.

Facists fighting for free speech makes about as much sense as communists fighting for property riggts

>It is divergent from communism in who holds control of the business environment (state holds direct control vs private)
That's not true for any practically implemented version of communism in the history of the world.

Yes, it not against free speech. its not like thet kill people with dissenting opinions in facist regimes

Fascism allows a certain extent of individuality and freedom of expression, so long as that freedom isn't directly in contest with the State.

>"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

If a nationstate is the foundation of our rights and responsibilities (and right now it still is, despite corporations and superstates like the EU attempting to erode them) then it is necessary for the nationstate to protect its interests and exert a certain amount of control in order to be as strong as it can so it may withstand damaging outside influences like postmodernism and Marxism. By creating a strong, proud state filled with strong, proud people a lot of the free speech stuff becomes a moot point because the people are happy (so long as they're not dangerous dissenters). The period 1933-39 in Germany perfectly illustrates this: a proud people happy to give up certain rights to an authoritarian police state because of what that state was providing and achieving. The majority of Germans didn't need free speech because they didn't want it.

The way it will ultimately disappear is probably by demographic replacement by peoples who do not share those values desu.

Liberty and justice for all is a beautiful idea if there is a general spirit of reciprocity (which works best in a culturally and ethnically homogeneous population) but it crumbles the moment you allow opportunist outsiders to exploit it.

That's why I think liberal societies can't last. They have a lacking immune system and are open to parasites.

But it seems that no one can really claim to know the "capital T" Truth. If a fascist seeks truth, doesn't that entail the necessity of the freedom to do so?
I cannot see how we can increase our understanding of truth if we don't allow even the most seemingly absurd views to be heard. Perhaps a view may seem absurd or even blasphemous to us now, but upon earnest study we may later find it to be more reasonable than our previous beliefs.
Making assumptions with respect to what's "obviously" true may just be the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation, where our beliefs and assumptions about what's "obviously" true itself demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding of the intellectual terrain.

Is it only considered a faggot if you set it on fire?

Bundle of sticks. Thoughts....

Free speach until it endangers the fatherland

Only for citizens and you can only be one if you're western European heritage

From my understanding your right. Oswald Mosley was a huge Free Speech advocate and believed it was an essential liberty.

Civic fascism > national fascism

Also, if you're not given the choice between doing the right or wrong thing, then are you really "choosing" at all? Isn't that why theists say we have evil on Earth, because it was a necessary by-product of God allowing us free will?

Yes, yes, everything was sunshine and rainbows in Nazi Germany. Eventually I realized that the reason everybody was so happy in Nazi Germany was because the ones who weren't happy were executed. It's all an opportunist utopian lie.

>dissenting opinions
>Communist revolutionary terrorists seeking to spread lies in order to destabilize the government, take over, and impose literal Orwellianism
Yeah totally the same thing.

Marxists are a threat to the common good and do not deserve to speak, to persuade and trick people.

A fascist state does demand some limits on freedom of speech, since it would get on the way of the building of a nationalist feeling. People who disagree with the government would create disunity.

Fascist authors say that marxists should be submitted to torture.

Okay, but isn't that what education and propaganda is for? Also, isn't allowing a group to wallow in obscurity as a result of their unpopular views more effective than active censorship, which could bring more attention and support to such people?

>free speech is an absolute right
You see some fascists were never absolute in their belief in the inalienable rights of man. Therefore there is no issue when it comes to curtailing those rights. If you're a fascist but believe in inalienable rights, they're not mutually exclusive just unrealistically impossible to sustain. Eventually you're going to have to suppress people who speak out against the enlightened rule and controls imposed upon society and eventually the fools will want to expand their rights (not hurting anyone so why can't I logic)

>impose orwellian totalitarian state
>kidnap and throw into camps who says the dont like it
>its ok guys, were still totally free speech

But isn't fascism left-wing, mano?

If your ideology is perfectly sound then you shouldn't need to force people to obey it.

Poeple who say facism is left wing are fucking retarded and you know it.
Dont egg on the shit posting Jamal.

Just like a gust of wind can start a fire so the voices of agitation and dissent should not be given oxygen.

>the masses naturally gravitate towards the optimal form of government

That's quite an assumption.

This.

Essa discussão que tomou conta das redes sociais no nosso país só mostra que o brasileiro precisa amadurecer MUITO intelectualmente. É retardo demais.

''A direita defende o istado mínimu, só tem isso em governo di isquerda hurr''

In Russia dissent views are marginalized and suppressed. The government doesn't go as far as ((they)) portray it, but it uses any legal loopholes and public leverage to ward off unwanted opinions.

Lefties would have been in the same position here as righties in the US. Some podcasts, some websites, a couple of paranoid radio hosts and no mass appeal whatsoever.

>fascist elements of the alt-right
They are not alt-right if they are fascist.
The alt-right is really about the inequities cause by the social change in the laws giving advantage to the people of color. Or the new inequity caused by it. There are even blacks who acknowledge that fact, and fully understand the the alt-right are not racists, but are civil rights champions for equality of all.
Those who claim to be fascists, are pseudo-fascists, and would have been camped in Hitlers Germany. They are a result of stupid people breeding, much like the BLM peoples parents.
Let us not forget that the Tea Party people were the racist fascists during Obama. Now what we are seeing is a major melt down of the left, who in reality are still in position of power trying to lump everyone together in their demons of society playbook. Do not fall for the lies.

If you get rid of the wind then you can't use your turbines anymore. You have to weigh the cost/benefit here and decide if what you're doing is really worth the price.

Okay, but consider this:

I have many fascist sympathies and I'm 100% for free speech.

Of course, but no society has ever existed without rules or limitations, whether codified as law or as social convention, there are and will always be restrictions. Just because you are guaranteed a right to speak does not mean you should shout "fire" in a cinema or "bomb" on a plane.

It's much better to just propagate against your opponents and ridicule them publicly and without scruple while maintaining a facade of free speech. That way you ascend the potential political football of being accused "anti-democratic" and avoid elevating your adversaries to the status of forbidden fruit. That's my Machiavellian take on it anyway.

As long as they're private camps!

I support the policies of the late Oswald Mosley.
Free speech yes. Unjust libellous criticism of the government no. Fair honest criticism yes.

If you want to know how to balance fascism with rights look to the British.

>fascism
>trying to define it with left right
Kill yourself now pls.
Left / right is a construct of democracy and the first political theory.
Fascism destroys it completely and rewrites a whole new system of politics.
There is variance in fascism, and it's economic policies are not particular. There is a philosophy of protectionism and nationalism for sure, but you have super socialist Hitler, corporatist Mussolini, and capitalist Pinochet, there is no strict definition for fascism on the ideological paradigm.

This choice of font is a working example of man's freedom to choose wrong.

>the only political axis is economics

This?
Oswald Mosley is the best Fascist advocate for rights of the people and respect of others.

>Pinochet was a socialist
Retard

Shouting "bomb" on a plane isn't exercising free speech because there's no meaning behind it other than an objectively provable lie. "Freedom of speech" is a misnomer; I think it could more accurately be called freedom of ideas or freedom of thought.

I was the first to post this picture. I'm so proud when I see it posted. Keep it going, a picture is worth six million words.

I lost that illusion by actually studying and paying attention to the way the Left fights viciously for the free speech of liars and bomb throwers, but moves to stifle law-abiding people who criticize the Left. It is still largely unquestioned gospel that McCarthyism was some kind of American Nazism, a witchhunt based on nothing -- which just happens to be the literal Soviet propaganda rebuttal to McCarthy, propagated through fellow travelers in academia and entertainment, and which was destroyed by the Venona papers.
Free speech can exclude revolutionism. In fact, it must.

In one way yes but in another , decency laws, sedition, blasphemy, libel, slander, distribution and production etc etc. A lot has changed since those days but if you wanted to know how to to restrict speech legally and still have a compliant population, the British did quite well.

I'm for freedom of speech. I'm for freedom of thought. And if you're building bombs to bring down the government and end freedom of speech, then I want the police to kick down your door -- and I do not see a contradiction there.

The American system was inlfuence by a few major factors; English common law, Christian ethics, revolutionary philosophy (based on enlightenment thinking), and finally Greco-Roman values. If we are to push for a fascistic rule in America it would have to be based on a method that respects the other values and can have a cultural justification. This can be done by building up the Roman tradition this is present in America (see the use of the fasces symbol in various federal institutions) but is never stated enough in modern discourse, while suppressing the real flaw in our system; our democratic institutions. The founders we're always distrustful of democracy and only adopted aspects of into the Rebublic because they obviously we're against the idea of a monarchy. Their major mistake was that they did not distrust democracy enough.

Are you saying that communism government doesn't seek direct control of the means of production?
Please do explain. I might be confused.

*republic

how can you tell whyt is unjust and what is fair and honest? that is clearly subjective my friend.

Fascism is a meme ideology, same as communism, egalitarianism, libertarianism, imperialism and feudalism.

Seems to me like at least half of self-identified alt-righters are fascists or NatSocs.

In practice, every "communist" country was actually some form of market socialism, even the USSR itself.

...

People should be allowed to say what they want, even Marxist bullshit. You control is by banning Marxist parties.

Yeah, plus I was using the term to refer to the kind of nebulous cluster of groups and individuals that can be described as far right or at least non-establishment right. The kinds of people that are here, basically.

Nah, we're only fighting for the freedom of speech now so we can turn around and use it to shut those commie fuckers up. In a better world, we could all have it; however, they have shown that their use of the freedom of speech necessitates a removal of ours. Plus, it really helps with the one-party state gig to censor your opponents.

sure...and Ethiopia has a strong base in capitalism in the form of a black market.
Practically, countries always have to compromise the basic ideology they follow to the real world. As the conceptual level, countries following communism seek to centralize the means of production.

Except that "Marxist bullshit" is a long-term strategy to take away all freedom, especially that of speech.

Everything is allowed except for communism and pornography.

What counts as "Marxist bullshit"? How do you draw the line between what people can and can't say?

Simple. We don't ban anything on ideological lines. We ban calls to violence, subversion, and programmatic lying.

DID SOMEBODY SAY FASCES?